Modern computers typically employ hardware and software to control a computer cursor, which in turn controls some computer functions. A cursor control device is commonly referred to as a mouse. Most computer manufacturers provide an interface in their equipment for connection to a mouse, and the cursor control for the mouse is commonly provided by software applications. For example, a mouse is used for cursor control applications in icon-based software of any kind, and is extensively utilized in computer controlled graphics applications.
Typically, a mouse is located and used in the vicinity of the computer. Most commonly, the mouse is supported on the same horizontal surface which supports the computer, and a pad is often positioned between the support surface and the mouse for preventing slippage of its internal track ball mechanism during movement of the mouse. Alternatively, the mouse can be supported by a specialized pull-out shelf mounted below the computer mounting surface. In either event, the mouse is operated by the user's hand by moving the mouse in a desired direction on the surface supporting the mouse, to control the position of the computer's cursor. This requires the operator to remove his or her hand from the computer's keyboard whenever it is desired to change the position of the cursor. When the cursor has been positioned as desired the operator returns his or her hand to the keyboard to resume operation of the computer.
The operator's hand movements away from the keyboard to the mouse, and back to the keyboard from the mouse, involve a certain amount of time and disruption in operation of the computer. In addition, repetitive hand and wrist movements often lead to a condition known as carpal tunnel syndrome.
Recognizing these drawbacks of conventional computer mouse deployment and use, a number of alternative foot-operated cursor control solutions have been proposed. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,886,685 (Best) discloses an adaptor that is worn on the operator's foot and fits over a conventional mouse. U.S. Pat. No. 5,907,318 (Medina), U.S. Pat. No. 5,334,997 (Scallon), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,055 (Redlich et al.) disclose various embodiments of a foot-controlled mouse based on a trackball mechanism. U.S. Pat. No. 5,838,305 (Bookstein) discloses a foot-operated cursor control in a mechanical arrangement using rails. U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,402 (Howell) discloses a number of foot-control methods, including use of a touchpad placed at the operator's feet. U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,426 (Dodson et al.) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,274 (Davis) both describe alternative foot-operated cursor control devices using trackball and joystick mechanisms.
Foot pedals have been used for command entry control with computers, largely for simulation systems. For example, foot pedals are connected to systems for driving or flight simulation in apparatus disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,552,807 (Hayes et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 5,148,152 (Stueckle et al.) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,177,473 (Drysdale). However, these uses of foot pedal mechanisms have been directed to simulating controls for acceleration, braking, or aircraft rudder operation, rather than for mouse cursor positioning.
It can be seen, then, that many types of solutions have been proposed for providing the option of operator foot control for cursor positioning. However, this cursor positioning operation is only one function performed by the manual mouse. As is well known, the mouse is also used for selection and command entry, using one or more mouse buttons. Moreover, the type of manual action required for clicking the select buttons on the mouse demands a high degree of precision and can be more stressful than the requirements for keyboard entry of text. While most of the above-mentioned disclosures provide some type of click buttons as a substitute for the conventional mouse buttons, the solutions proposed are less than optimal. One characteristic type of solution that has been proposed is the deployment of buttons on the side or edges of the foot-operated mechanism, as in the U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,426 (Dodson et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 5,334,997 (Scallon), and U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,402 (Howell) disclosures. Alternatives include depressing the same device used for cursor control movement, seemingly an awkward arrangement and likely to result in unintended cursor movement unless done with precision, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,907,318 (Medina) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,274 (Davis).
Overall, then, while there have been some workable solutions proposed for replacing the mouse as a cursor movement tool, other mouse functions have not been addressed nearly as well. Some of the difficulties faced in replacing the manual mouse with a foot-operated device relate to the relative “dexterity” of the foot, that is to adeptness and precision of foot movement. While it is true that we use our feet for some types of complex operations where subtle movements are needed, such as when controlling vehicle acceleration and braking in traffic, there is little doubt that positional movement exercised for the foot differs substantially from that exercised for the hand. There is reason to suppose that the general arcwise movement sequence of pivoting the foot on the heel, familiar to anyone who drives an automobile, is suitable for control of incremental movement. However, movement of the foot in a cross-wise direction may not be nearly as precise. Thus, following the manual mouse analogy too closely may not result in a satisfactory foot control as a substitute for mouse functions.
A second consideration relates to clicking and double-clicking mouse buttons. While this operation can be readily performed by hand, there is reason to doubt that this same type of rapid tapping movement required would be easily performed by the feet. As is noted above, this is further complicated by the need to use the foot or feet for cursor positioning at the same time. This conflict may argue for a clear separation of positioning and clicking functions. In this spirit, the foot-control solution disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,635,957 (Feierbach et al.) forgoes the use of the feet for mouse positioning and only uses feet for controlling the mouse click buttons. However, with such a solution, the operator is not freed from the requirement to regularly to remove and return her hand to the keyboard for cursor positioning.
In summary, while prior art solutions address some of the requirements for relieving the operator of constantly leaving and returning to the keyboard with the mouse-operating hand, there has been a lack of attention paid to the full scope of the problem and to what may be natural for an operator. More specifically, solutions for cursor positioning appear, in many cases, to simply substitute mechanical structures that had been employed for manual mouse movement and transplant them from the desktop to the floor, regardless of their suitability to the foot movement of the human operator. Solutions for selection buttons have continued in this same vein, regardless of the awkwardness of operation and of the relative discomfort that can be the result of the unnatural operator movement that would be required. A host of control functions that would ease foot-controlled cursor operation, or make it even feasible in some cases, have been overlooked.
Thus, it is an object of the present invention to provide a device for simplifying positioning of the computer cursor, or providing any other input to the computer, without requiring the operator to remove his or her hands from the keyboard. It is a further object of the invention to provide a device which prevents disruption in operation of the computer when it is desired to provide an input to the computer, such as to change the position of the computers cursor. It is a further object of the invention to provide a unique method of controlling the position of a computer cursor, to simplify operation of the computer, and to make computer operation more efficient. Yet another object of the invention is to ameliorate carpal tunnel syndrome in computer users.